I deliberately waited until I was done with school and had a snack to look up Bush’s speech on Iraq. Although I was already 99% sure about what he was going to say, I needed to see it. Watching Bush’s speech left me feeling angry, sad and powerless. In addition to asking that more American troops be sent to fight in the same manner which has thus far resulted in little but increasing bloodshed (and record profits from some segments of society,) Bush has outlined his strategy for Iran and Syria. Granted, I am no fan of either of the regimes in those nations, but I cringed as he said:
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria… We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
While I agree with the premise of rooting out terrorist networks, history has shown that Bush’s actions upon such threats lack any semblance of nuance. The recent war in Lebanon should be an indication of what may be in store for Iran. Also infuriating was the lack of any mention of Israel, whereas almost every other Middle Eastern nation was mentioned by name. Although the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is oft used as a scapegoat for inwardly directed grievances within the Muslim world, to deny that Israel is a key part of this entire larger picture is astonishing. To many within the Muslim world, the belligerence of the state of Israel coupled with Western backed incursions serve only to reinforce the notion that a larger crusade is being waged against them. Although this may be incorrect, out government, certainly, is aware that perception often trumps reality…
So I did what I could, and I called my Senators and House Representative. Luckily for me I come from a very blue state, and at each Congressman’s website, a statement opposing Bush’s speech had already been posted. All I did was lend my two cents, expressing support for a concerted opposition to this recycled nonsense. And no, I do not know what the “correct” answer is at this point; in fact I believe that we have gone too far for there to even be one anymore. We must retreat.
Let me add that last night while looking for some good examples of speeches for my students, I stumbled across one by Charles Lindberg advocating isolationism during the buildup to the Second World War. The rhetoric, with its thinly veiled anti-Semitism, was truly chilling. But his sick speech served only to reinforce my pride at the sacrifices that our soldiers made during that war, for no doubt a great leap of faith must be taken even when one is presented with a just case. But in that epochal struggle, the sacrifice ran deep, including those who remained at home.
Thus, when George Bush claims that, “the challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time,” I would like to think that if we are indeed faced with a threat of such magnitude that every American would be asked to sacrifice. Yet, on December 20th of 2006, Bush encouraged us to “go shopping more.” I am reminded of Terry Gilliam’s dystopian film Brazil in which disobedience to the state carries the penalty of a reduced credit rating; the masses shop amid violence and terrorism. Indeed, it is frightening how easily it is for Americans to go about business as usual just as 20,000 more of us are being asked to again do that which has gotten us nowhere.
And so the war goes on, a tired and thinly stretched army is pushed even further, we are told to hold our judgment until November (a year!) and war-profiteering corporations breathe easier knowing that new contracts will be penned and existing ones extended. If this does not get the American people onto the streets demanding change, it seems as if nothing will.
I had the oppertunity to watch Bush’s speech hours later(I was in class all day) and one statement really stuck out for me “the challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time…”
When thinking about this particular quote I am reminded that people are quick to judge and not usually cognizant of the idea that it is near impossible to really understand the events of an age in that era. Let me give you an example: During the mid 1860’s Abraham Lincoln was considered a terrible person by many Americans(and I am nopt just talking about the Southern US). Many people across the North were fed up with him and his war. He was made fun of, written badly about, and mocked multiple times a day. He continued with his effort becuause in his heart he believed what he was doing was the right thing. Eventually people saw the war winnable and many started to cheer for him(even if they disagreed with the end result). Today, Lincoln is conisdered one of the finest presidents to ever serve and is usually placed in the highest echelon of presidents with his hero George Washington.
Another example is that of Vietnam. Many people during the Vietnam era claimed it to be an absolute disaster and an unwinnable war. When the US did pull out, many people decired what a bad idea it was to have gone. Many people also point to it as one war the US has lost since its inception. However, I challange you to think about if the US really lost the war or not. Think back to what was the real premise for the war. It was the same premise which led to the Korean War: to combat and stop the expansion of Communism in Southeast Asia. Look at Southeast Asia at the end of Vietnam and today 32 years later. In those 32 years the expansion has not occured. The great communist spread has not happened. The USSR and China were attempting to spread the communistic goals across the world and now looking back it hasnt occured. China is slowly inchign its way towards capitalism, Cuba is likly set for a revolution the second Castro dies, and N. Korea might be the last true communist country left.
My point with these two examples is that it is very impossible to judge that which is happening in our own time. Thus who knows what comes out of this Iraq war. Perhaps 30 years from now we will look out at the world and see a handful of TRadical Terroristic countries and say it looks like that message was contained and not allowed to spread. What are the odds of that? Glad you asked: its 1/1 🙂
(if you dont get that last odds, find an advanced statistics textbook and look up Logistic Regression)
My biggest concern is Bush’s aparent lack of strategy. I would be supportive of sending more troops to Iraq if it were part of a well thought out strategy with realistic goals. I think that we need to accept that regardless of whether or not we should be in Iraq right now, we are in Iraq and we have a responsibility to the people of that country. If we were to completely pull out right now, there would be a bloodbath, which we would not want to be responsible for. The Iraq Study Group suggested a strategy that is the product of countless hours on the part of a bipartisan group of some of the greatest millitary and foreign policy minds in the country. If Bush were to suggest another well thought out alternative, that would be fine, but that’s not what he’s doing.
I wish to answer the young man who writes of wars past, and how at the time, they were extremely unpopular, and then “voila”—there came a time when all viewed these terrible events as the “Right War”, seeing the good it had accomplished throughout the world.
And now let us wait and see what the present debacle will accomplish and how we can enjoy its fruits 20-30 years hence, a bogus reason for any war.
There are many who do not share in the glories of war and their results, to put it bluntly—the dead, the maimed and those left mentally incompetent.
Having been a participant in an extremely vicious battle at Tarawa, (WW2)–i have a heavy heart for those young men and women who have to fear each day,—during an island invasion it goes like this: SIGHT–see the atoll on the horizon, SOUND: the frightful noise of war, SMELL: the dead of war.
My life is a happy and healthy one but somehow i can never forget the sight of the dead strewn about the ground like disposable trash.
I do hope i have not been to forthright, take care-be well–your ever-loving granpa
Sir,
I am greatly honored that you have chosen to respond to my comment. I know that you have never met me, and I wish to tell you a little bit about myself. My grandfather fought for the British Army in WWII and was stationed in Italy. When he returned from the war he was a changed man(or so I am told as I never had the oppertunity to meet him). While I have personally never been in war I have worked as a therapist for a man who was a survivor of the Gulf War. The man suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as well as Schizophrenia (Paranoid). When I was his primary therapist I spent hours talking with him about the war and other things going on in his life. While I obviously can’t say much more, I can say this: events which occured to him in 1990 still have a profound effect on his life when I last spoke to him in 2006.
I am a man who has the utmost respect for the military and all veterans. Whenever I see a veteran or a man(or woman) wearing a uniform I go up to them and I say thank you. I thank them becuase they are willing to put their life on the line so that I might be safe here and continue my life as I choose. I cannot think of a more honorable profession, nor one that desearves any more respect.
With that said, I defend my earlier comments. I think that it is hard to really understand the value of anything within our own time. War is an unfortunate situation that has come all to often in the history of the world. While history is written by the victors, I believe that truly understanding the outcome of an event requires the study of many years past the event in question.
For example, look at the assasination of Abraham Lincoln. The assainsation of Lincoln led to Johnson becoming president. Johnson was not a strong presence and with the election of 1866, his opponents took over control of congress. This led to the occupation of the South utilizing the military as well as the eventful withdrawl and eventual reconstruction. This of course would lead to the Civil Right movement. However what might have happened had Lincoln not been assasinated. WHile it is of course impossible to say, I believe that his party would have won the election of 1866. This would lead to his reconstruction plan (which would not have had occupation of the south). This in my mind would lead to a different type of reconstruction and very likely a civil rights movement that takes place much earlier, like around the time of woman’s sufferage. WHile, I have had to extrapolate events, my point is that it is not really possible to understand the ramifications of an action until years later.
Thus my point when referencing Vietnam. The overall goal of not allowing Communism to expand was achieved. In essence, the communsitc bloc that would occur throughout South East Asia was never realized. While Vietnam was not stopped from its commuistic influence: Singapoire, Japan, and Indonesia are not. Would they have been had the US not fought in Vietnam, possibly, but we do know that they are not because communsim did not spread past Vietnam.
And thats what my point with Iraq is as well. Perhaps this will turn into Vietnam in that way. Perhaps we will sit here 30 years from now and see Iraq still full of Radical Terrorists. But we might also see Jordan, Egypt, UAE, etc where radical terrorism has not flourished. Perhaps we will see that Radical Terrorism was in essence kept in check in Iraq. Will that justify the war now? I don’t know. I cannot answer that question. But I do believe in my heart that had communism spread to SE Asia, it would have been a much more dangerous situation.
It was an honor and privilage to respond to you, sir.
-BT
It’s a weak line of reasoning, Big Tex, because Saddam, a dictator, was certainly no friend of the “terrorists.” Based on your logic, American forces should have intervened in many other locales around the globe. Absolute dictators, such as Saddam, or from my experience, Karimov of Uzbekistan, do a pretty darn good job of stifling dissent. Was Iraq democratic? No way. But if you contend that our mission is to prevent the spread of radical Islamic thought, Iraq should by no means have been the first venue for such an offensive. It boils down to the fact that this was a war of empire and resources taking place at a time in which such endeavors have fallen out of favor. The Bush cabal’s ideas for American global military dominance, as outlined in the PNAC document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” spell it out for those who wish to see. Terrorism is indeed a genuine threat, but by design it can withstand superior conventional attacks. Indeed for those warped enough to engage in a terrorist act, any sort of risk, including one’s own death, is one worth taking. To believe that sophisticated weaponry can snuff out this threat is sheer folly. Although America’s might is something of which I’m proud, its improper use can have catastrophic consequences, as we are seeing now. Stopping the spread of hateful ideology requires a combination of self-assessment, skilled diplomacy, and yes, perhaps military intervention. But to claim that Iraq was ground zero for this “decisive ideological struggle,” is by now an old saw which has been throughly discredited.
WD: Happy MLK day!
You comment that if our goal is to stop global islamic terrorism, then Iraq should not have been our forst goal and I agree. And the fact was that it wasn’t. The first place we went was Afghanhistan. We went into Afghhanistan well before Iraq and there are still troops over there. Sadly, I have not kept up with that theatre as much as I would have liked(due to being under the weather the last week or so).
The sad fact of reality is that diplomacy does not succed in stopping hateful ideology. Take for example Neville Chamberlain. He attempted diplomacy with Hitler and even appeased Adolf by ceading Czechoslovakia. As we all know Hitler did not stop there. He would go on to take Netherlands, Belgium and France before the Allies would stop him and force him turn back towards Berlin.
Also look at the case of Edward I of England. He was asked to help resolve the dispute over the scottish crown. His choice:John Balliol was almost at once undermined in authority in every way possible. This led to Balliol attempting diplomacy with Edward I. This would in essence lead to Edward I raising an army and wiping out the inhabitants of Berwick.
Even the treaty of Paris in 1918 serves as an example. There was diplomacy attempted with the fallen Germany. The diplomacy was based on reperations that the Germans would pay. This led to the destruction of the German economy which would lead to the rise of Adolf Hitler. Again, diplomacy failing in a key situation.
These are but three examples, but there are countless examples through history. Ghengis Khan, several of the men who held the title Caesar, the Japanese samurai, even the writings of Sun Tzu. It is evident that in the cases of stopping hateful ideology, deplomacy simply doesn’t work. It is too bad too.